Judicial Discipline and the Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees Is What the Judge Gets Raymond J

University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2010 Judicial Discipline and the Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees Is What the Judge Gets Raymond J. McKoski Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation McKoski, Raymond J., "Judicial Discipline and the Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees Is What the Judge Gets" (2010). Minnesota Law Review. 516. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/516 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Judicial Discipline and the Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees Is What the Judge Gets Raymond J. McKoski† Introduction ........................................................................... 1916 I. Development of the Appearance of Impropriety Standard ........................................................................... 1920 A. Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis and the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics .......................................... 1921 B. The 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics .......................... 1925 C. The 1972 Code of Judicial Conduct ........................... 1926 1. The Fortas Scandal: Giving New Importance to Appearances ......................................................... 1926 2. Judge Haynsworth, Appearances, and Judicial Disqualification ................................................... 1929 D. The 1990 Model Code of Judicial Conduct ............... 1930 E. The 2007 Model Code ................................................ 1931 1. Preliminary Drafts of Canon 1 of the 2007 Model Code .......................................................... 1932 2. Final Draft of Canon 1 and Rule 1.2 of the 2007 Code ..................................................................... 1934 II. Is the Appearance of Impropriety Standard Void for Vagueness? ....................................................................... 1936 A. Vagueness and Rules of Professional Discipline ....... 1937 1. Professional Norms Require Actual Misconduct ........................................................... 1939 2. Professionals Establish Professional Norms ...... 1940 † Circuit Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois. In the interest of full disclosure, the author is the Vice-Chair of the Illinois Judi- cial Ethics Committee and a member of the American Bar Association. The author thanks the editors and staff of the Minnesota Law Review for their many careful revisions and insightful suggestions, all of which helped to sig- nificantly improve the Article. The views expressed are solely those of the author. Copyright © 2010 by Raymond J. McKoski. 1914 2010] THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY 1915 B. The Reasonable Person, Vagueness, and the Appearance of Impropriety ....................................... 1941 1. The Reasonable Person’s Appearance in Judicial Ethics ..................................................... 1943 2. The Fully Informed Reasonable Person and the Appearance of Impropriety: A Paradox .............. 1944 3. The Birth of the Partially Informed Reasonable Person .................................................................. 1946 4. Summing Up: The Reasonable Person and Professional Norms ............................................. 1949 III. The Costs and Benefits of Disciplining Appearances ...... 1950 A. Costs ........................................................................... 1951 1. The Chilling Effect of Appearance-Based Discipline ............................................................. 1951 a. Judges and the Big Chill ............................... 1952 b. Leaving Family Members in the Cold .......... 1955 2. Judge Andrew J. Smithson ................................. 1958 B. Benefits ...................................................................... 1962 1. The Appearance of Impropriety as a Safety Net ............................................................ 1962 a. Personal Relationships with Criminals ........ 1967 b. Misuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office ...... 1970 c. Favoritism in Appointments ......................... 1972 i. Relying on Appearances Where Actual Favoritism Is Demonstrated ................... 1973 ii. Spector and Fiduciary Appointments in New York ................................................. 1975 2. The Appearance of Impropriety as a Bargaining Chip ..................................................................... 1978 IV. Solutions ........................................................................... 1984 A. Eliminate the Appearance of Impropriety as a Disciplinary Standard ............................................... 1984 B. Replace the Appearance Standard with Specific Rules ........................................................................... 1986 C. Place a Limiting Construction on the Phrase “Appearance of Impropriety” ..................................... 1989 Conclusion .............................................................................. 1995 1916 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [94:1914 INTRODUCTION In the Allegory of the Cave,1 Plato describes a group of people imprisoned in a cavern. The prisoners are bound by the neck and legs in such a manner that they can only see the wall in front of them. Their view of the world is limited to the shadows projected on the wall by objects travelling past the cave en- trance. Captives since birth, the residents have never directly observed the true form of the items casting the shadows. Thus, appearances, not substance, govern their lives. Judgments made in this distorted, two-dimensional world would have no basis in fact. Only those adventurous enough to leave the safety and security of their virtual world will come to discern the dif- ference between reality and illusion. This is not to minimize the importance of appearances. Even outside the cave, appearance and perception often tri- umph over substance and reality. Wise public officials learn this lesson early in their career. Abraham Lincoln, for example, knew that in order to maintain credibility in his personal and political life he “must not only be chaste but above suspicion.”2 Recognizing that a “universal feeling, whether or not ill- founded, cannot be safely disregarded,”3 President Lincoln de- clined an invitation to discuss a prisoner exchange with the Confederacy fearing that the meeting would compromise the Union’s war effort by giving the appearance of a peace negotia- tion.4 Less astute leaders learn that perception trumps substance the hard way. After losing the first-ever televised presi- dential debate because of his less-than-photogenic appearance (especially compared to the adroitly coffered, tanned John Ken- nedy), Richard Nixon candidly admitted that in preparing for the debate he should have spent more time on appearances and less on substance.5 1. PLATO, THE REPUBLIC 253–61 (Benjamin Jowett trans., Vintage Books 1991). 2. Letter from Abraham Lincoln to William B. Warren and Others (Apr. 7, 1849), in 2 THE COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 41, 41 (Roy P. Basler ed., 1953) [hereinafter COLLECTED WORKS] (“In relation to these pledges, I must not only be chaste but above suspicion.”); see also Abraham Lincoln, Remarks to a Pennsylvania Delegation (Jan. 24, 1861), in 4 COL- LECTED WORKS 179, 180 (“Any man whom I may appoint to such a [Cabinet] position, must be, as far as possible, like Caesar’s wife, pure and above suspicion . .”). 3. President Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (Oct. 16, 1854), in 2 COLLECTED WORKS 247, 256. 4. See DAVID HERBERT DONALD, LINCOLN 175, 456 (1995). 5. See RICHARD M. NIXON, SIX CRISES 340 (1962) (“I recognized the basic 2010] THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY 1917 Judges, like other public officials, have long been affected by appearances. Future Supreme Court Justice David Davis, while serving as a circuit judge in mid-nineteenth century Illi- nois, made sure that everyone except the clerk and sheriff left the courtroom before he presided over matters in which he was a party.6 The failure of Justice Abe Fortas to recognize the importance of appearances resulted in his forced resignation from the United States Supreme Court.7 Similarly, Judge Clement Haynsworth’s inattention to public perceptions thwarted his appointment to the high Court.8 Both Fortas and Haynsworth learned too late that “[i]n matters of ethics, appearance and reality often converge as one.”9 Presidents, judges, and other public officials are not the only ones who are prudent to avoid bad appearances. Saint Paul advised the Thessalonians to “[a]bstain from the appearance of evil.”10 Caesar held his wife to a “beyond reproach”11 standard, and the Idaho Supreme Court cautioned husbands and wives that they must “conduct themselves that each may be above suspicion from the other.”12 Doctors,13 teachers,14 sports fig- mistake I had made. I had concentrated too much on substance and not enough on appearance.”). 6. See HENRY CLAY WHITNEY, LIFE ON THE CIRCUIT WITH LINCOLN 81– 82 (1940) (describing how Judge Davis would enter default judgments against defendants he had sued). Of course, even in Davis’s time it was improper for a judge to preside over a matter in which the judge was a party. See Trs. of Ill. & Mich. Canal v. Brainard, 12 Ill. 487, 516 (1851)

Load more